Assembly free comparative genomics of short‐read sequence data discovers the needles in the haystack
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most comparative genomic analyses of short-read sequence (SRS) data rely upon the prior assembly of a reference sequence. Here, we present an assembly free analysis of SRS data that discovers sequence variants among focal genomes by tabulating the presence and frequency of 'complex' fragments in the data. Using data from nine tree species, we compare genomic diversity from populations to families. As a control, we simulated SRS data for three known plant genomes. The results provide insight into the quality and distributional bias of the sequencing reaction. Three main types of informative complexmers were identified, each possessing unique statistical properties. Type I complexmers are unique to a genome but suffer from a high false positive rate, being highly dependent on read coverage and distribution. Type II complexmers are shared between two genomes and can highlight potential copy-number differences. Type III complexmers are exclusive to a subset of genomes and can be useful for associating genetic differences with phenotypic or geographic variation. At the population level in an endangered timber species, numerous markers were identified that could potentially determine geographic origin of individuals and regulate international trade. We observed that the genomic data for the four fig species were more divergent than for stone oak species, possibly due to their complex pollination syndrome and high rates of gene flow. Our approach greatly enhances the application of SRS technology to the study of non-model organisms and directly identifies the most informative genetic elements for more detailed study and assembly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".